Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Adobe CC, clarifying some points.  (Read 7340 times)
rodcones
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


« on: June 04, 2013, 04:12:20 AM »
ReplyReply

It seems some points need clarifying in this Adobe Cloud business, although they may have been lost in all the "noise".

Adobe's major illustrative products can be bundled under their Creative Suite or bought individually and, related or not, Photoshop took on the moniker of CSx instead of continuing from PS7. There may be a fair number of photographers who use the whole Suite but the brouhaha has revolved around PS for those using it alone.

For this exercise the bought versions of the bundle or PS I'll refer to as CS-N and the possible future "Creative Cloud" versions as CS-CC.

The points concerned I've numbered so feel free to say right or wrong or comment to each.

1. With CS-CC the _only_ "Cloud connection" is the need for an Internet connection once a month for the verification/activation procedure of the subscription.

2. Your photo files, be they RAW, JPG, TIFF, PSD etc, reside on _your_ hard disk in your chosen locations and remain useable even if you stop subscribing to CS-CC.

3. Those who have any CS-N but no desire to take on CS-CC can continue to use it until they or their hard disks wear out, the only possible deficit is no update for Camera Raw - never mind any new "wonder tool".

4. The "sticky point" is for those with CS-N who take on CS-CC. Their install is amended to CS-CC and stopping subscription in future would lose access to the software, unless Adobe includes a reversion mode - or the user restores the backup taken pre-CC.

5. New users starting out with CS-CC will lose access to the software if subscription stops, unless Adobe allow a "final fee" after a certain usage time has elapsed.


Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7975



WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 04, 2013, 04:40:32 AM »
ReplyReply

2. Your photo files, be they RAW, JPG, TIFF, PSD etc, reside on _your_ hard disk in your chosen locations and remain useable even if you stop subscribing to CS-CC.

How do you edit a tiff file generated by PS without a properly licensed version of PS?

The location of storage being accessible is a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient.

So in fact, you lose the ability to work on your files the day your subscription license ends.

3. Those who have any CS-N but no desire to take on CS-CC can continue to use it until they or their hard disks wear out, the only possible deficit is no update for Camera Raw - never mind any new "wonder tool".

Which puts an end today to the existence of CS6 as a strategic solution in which it makes sense to continue to invest in terms of IP creation (layers,...) and skills.

Because we know the world around CS will keep evolving ever faster and compatibility with the other apps our workflow requires will quickly be an issue.

Practically speaking it will probably not be realistic to keep using CS6 more than 2 years from now on.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
artobest
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 259


WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 04, 2013, 05:18:54 AM »
ReplyReply



Practically speaking it will probably not be realistic to keep using CS6 more than 2 years from now on.


Plenty of people are still using CS2/3/4/5. I don't see why that will change with 6. I just wish they'd ironed out some of the bugs before now - in my experience, it's the buggiest version yet.
Logged

hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1679


« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2013, 05:24:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Practically speaking it will probably not be realistic to keep using CS6 more than 2 years from now on.
If you are willing/able to have a "legacy computer" (or service running on a virtual machine), then CS6 should be able to run on that machine forever, unless there are some communication with Adobe servers that might eventually kill it?

If you are running a generic computer where you want to have antivirus, the latest security patches/OS revision, then CS6 will at some point in the future not be compatible with the services provided by the OS. Seems to me that Microsoft keeps a legacy application alive longer than Apple.

-h
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7975



WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2013, 06:18:13 AM »
ReplyReply

If you are willing/able to have a "legacy computer" (or service running on a virtual machine), then CS6 should be able to run on that machine forever, unless there are some communication with Adobe servers that might eventually kill it?

If you are running a generic computer where you want to have antivirus, the latest security patches/OS revision, then CS6 will at some point in the future not be compatible with the services provided by the OS. Seems to me that Microsoft keeps a legacy application alive longer than Apple.

Exactly. Just to give on example, the raw converter will need to stay up to date unless you intend not to change camera.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2013, 07:12:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Plenty of people are still using CS2/3/4/5. I don't see why that will change with 6. I just wish they'd ironed out some of the bugs before now - in my experience, it's the buggiest version yet.

Adobe just issued an update today.
Logged
RFPhotography
Guest
« Reply #6 on: June 04, 2013, 07:22:38 AM »
ReplyReply

It seems some points need clarifying in this Adobe Cloud business, although they may have been lost in all the "noise".

Adobe's major illustrative products can be bundled under their Creative Suite or bought individually and, related or not, Photoshop took on the moniker of CSx instead of continuing from PS7. There may be a fair number of photographers who use the whole Suite but the brouhaha has revolved around PS for those using it alone.

For this exercise the bought versions of the bundle or PS I'll refer to as CS-N and the possible future "Creative Cloud" versions as CS-CC.

The points concerned I've numbered so feel free to say right or wrong or comment to each.

1. With CS-CC the _only_ "Cloud connection" is the need for an Internet connection once a month for the verification/activation procedure of the subscription.

You can continue to use the products for 90 days if you happen to be offline at a particular verification time.

Quote
2. Your photo files, be they RAW, JPG, TIFF, PSD etc, reside on _your_ hard disk in your chosen locations and remain useable even if you stop subscribing to CS-CC.

True.  However if you choose to use another program it likely won't, as Bernard pointed out, be compatible with all of the features and functions of PS that you may have used.  

Quote
3. Those who have any CS-N but no desire to take on CS-CC can continue to use it until they or their hard disks wear out, the only possible deficit is no update for Camera Raw - never mind any new "wonder tool".

True.  The ACR updates aren't, perhaps, overly crucial as you will likely be able to continue to use the DNG Converter to convert RAW files to DNG for use in older versions of PS.  The likelihood of a significant improvement in ACR is, I'd venture, less than a new 'wonder tool' in PS.

Quote
4. The "sticky point" is for those with CS-N who take on CS-CC. Their install is amended to CS-CC and stopping subscription in future would lose access to the software, unless Adobe includes a reversion mode - or the user restores the backup taken pre-CC.

Sort of true.  For those who've bought their previous versions of PS from Adobe via download, they should be able to continue to log into their Adobe account and re-download the older versions.  Are you certain that the CC version updates the previous CS versions and that the two aren't installed simultaneously?  

Quote
5. New users starting out with CS-CC will lose access to the software if subscription stops, unless Adobe allow a "final fee" after a certain usage time has elapsed.

True.  That concept of a fee to transform a CC version to a static-state legacy version would, I believe, be a big plus for Adobe and users.  The extent of the fee should be based on the history of use.  For example, a long time user who's paid for the full version and upgrades along the way should have a very nominal or no 'end fee'.  A new user should have to pay an 'end fee' based on how long they've been using and how much of the price they've paid to date.  In other words, a sliding scale.  

Something else that I haven't seen addressed to date is the idea of modifying your subscription after it starts.  For example, if a user decides s/he wants to try other Adobe products than just PS and signs up for the entire CC suite, but at some point down the road decides they don't need/want the other Adobe products, what is the ability to revert to a single-product CC subscription for just PS?  I'm sure Adobe would be happy to go the other way but may be less happy to allow users to scale back.  
« Last Edit: June 04, 2013, 10:06:48 AM by BobFisher » Logged
Steve House
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2013, 08:00:23 AM »
ReplyReply

...
Something else that I haven't seen addressed to date is the idea of modifying your subscription after it starts.  For example, if a user decides s/he wants to try other Adobe products than just PS and signs up for the entire CC suite, but at some point down the road decides they don't need/want the other Adobe products, what is the ability to revert to a single-product CC subscription for just PS?  I'm sure Adobe would be happy to go the other way but may be less happy to allow users to scale back. 
Good point.  What led me to be an 'early adopter' of the CC subscription was the fact that I use or plan to use other Adobe products besides Lightroom and Photoshop - specifically Acrobat, Audition, and Premiere.  A CC subscription gives me access to all the various Master Suite applications for an annualized monthly cost close to the cost of a Photoshop upgrade alone.
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3643


« Reply #8 on: June 04, 2013, 08:59:43 AM »
ReplyReply

It seems some points need clarifying in this Adobe Cloud business, although they may have been lost in all the "noise".

Hi,

Feel free, but why do you feel this uncontrollable urge? Just wondering ...

Quote
Adobe's major illustrative products can be bundled under their Creative Suite or bought individually and, related or not, Photoshop took on the moniker of CSx instead of continuing from PS7.

One doesn't buy the product, but purchases a licence. A licence is quite a different thing compared to ownership of a product. But let's not quibble about semantics, there are others whom I trust can (and will) do a better job if this thread lasts long enough.

Quote
There may be a fair number of photographers who use the whole Suite but the brouhaha has revolved around PS for those using it alone.


"brouhaha"? That seems a bit of an insult to those who's livelihood is at stake, wouldn't you agree?

Quote
The points concerned I've numbered so feel free to say right or wrong or comment to each.

1. With CS-CC the _only_ "Cloud connection" is the need for an Internet connection once a month for the verification/activation procedure of the subscription.

An internet connection is also required for access to the applications upon first install, and for updates although the latter is not new. For those on low bandwidth connections or with volume limitations, that can be a significant hurdle.

Quote
2. Your photo files, be they RAW, JPG, TIFF, PSD etc, reside on _your_ hard disk in your chosen locations and remain useable even if you stop subscribing to CS-CC.

As stated by me and others on various occasions, there may be dependencies (e.g. Smart objects, adjustment layers, etc. in a Works in progress situation) that require proprietary access to the file layers.

Quote
4. The "sticky point" is for those with CS-N who take on CS-CC. Their install is amended to CS-CC and stopping subscription in future would lose access to the software, unless Adobe includes a reversion mode - or the user restores the backup taken pre-CC.

It remains to be seen how long activation of that software, e.g. on a new hard disk or Operating System, remains available.

Quote
5. New users starting out with CS-CC will lose access to the software if subscription stops, unless Adobe allow a "final fee" after a certain usage time has elapsed.

Hope springs eternal, but the past behavior of Adobe doesn't inspire trust.

Not covered by your list is the pricing increase, and the even further inflated European pricing on top of that. Also not addressed is the collateral damage to Plug-in developers, book and training publishers, dealer networks, in company training and EDP related issues no longer concentrated at periodic upgrade time but monthly, and not to forget the destruction of earlier Photoshop training of skills when forced to switch to other software.

Also not covered is the reduced incentive for Adobe to keep innovating their relatively mature products. As stated on other fora, a Camera shake reduction filter is a nice feature, but professional photographers usually do not produce enough camera shake to be an issue that need solving. Besides, there are already solutions for those few instances where it might help. Besides, we have been told that Photoshop is not intended to be used by photographers in the first place ..., but I digress.

Also, it has now become more inviting for software piracy to offer 'free' access to the suite because it's supposed to be more valuable, and brings the associated risk of destructive payloads. This will create a much more effective distribution system for malware which will cost society as a whole. I do not condone the spread and use of pirated software, but that doesn't stop others when the opportunity is offered to them on a silver platter.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


« Reply #9 on: June 04, 2013, 09:27:08 AM »
ReplyReply

It seems some points need clarifying in this Adobe Cloud business, although they may have been lost in all the "noise".


Why is it assumed that everyone that is less than thrilled with the CC licensing model, it's because the issue has not been clarified? For a great many folks it's the actual details that are clearly stated in the CC EULA that have us concerned ... not a lack of understanding or lack of comprehension about what CC is ... or is not.

While it may be true that some folks have created some "noise" on the matter ... at this point most of those individuals who are concerned about the long term negative ramifications really isn't because they "don't get it" or are incapable of understanding the concept. It's because of very legitimate and serious ramifications of the licensing model itself ... one that assures Adobe a stable income from here to eternity ... and guarantees the individual user ... not so much except relinquishing a monthly stipend to Adobe ...

For Adobe (and worse, our fellow users) to assume that we can't grasp the CC concept says far more about the former, than the latter.
Logged
kirkt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #10 on: June 04, 2013, 10:49:08 AM »
ReplyReply

<snip>
 Besides, we have been told that Photoshop is not intended to be used by photographers in the first place ..., but I digress.
</snip>

Cheers,
Bart

Bart, I have never been able to reconcile this assertion - it is called "PHOTOshop" and was designed by Knoll, a known photography enthusiast, and contains several darkroom analogs in its feature set.  Lightroom is actually called "Adobe Photoshop Lightroom" as in, an adjunct to Photoshop where you can convert your raws for further processing in Photoshop.

Lightroom may be "the answer" to working pros who need to keyword and to process hundreds of wedding images or product shots in a hurry, with minimal adjustment and the need to publish them to a web gallery; however, even to the photographer, it is not Photoshop.  Lightroom is marketed as the one-stop environment for your digital photographs, and it is pushed toward "photo enthusiasts" (as in, according to Adobe blog update, "Photographers, particularly photo-enthusiasts, are looking for a more tailored offering that focuses on their particular needs.").  I don't know what a "photo enthusiast" is, or what it means to Adobe.  Presumably it means "non professional who has bought into the Lightroom workflow."

I thought Lightroom was designed to answer the needs of photographers (professionals who guided Adobe in the creation of Lightroom) and that is what inspired the repackaging of ACR into a more limited workflow environment with features like DAM, web publishing, and now printing.  This approach signals that the actual concept of *processing* the image is not as important as managing and delivering the image, relative to Photoshop.  I can see the appeal to working pros looking for efficiency and amateurs who like to get results by sliding the sliders.  Between those two bookends, there are a lot of "photographers" who may, or may not, find Lightroom the most effective or expressive tool for their interests and workflow.  I do not know how many Adobe users this comprises, but I would imagine that many of these folks use Photoshop.  I think this is, in part, the audience that is not real happy - these users are being told:

 "sure, you use Photoshop as a photographer/photo enthusiast, but that is really for pros - if you don;t like the CC subscription to keep using a pro tool, use Lightroom.  This is the tool you really need if you are not serious enough to subscribe, and just to prove it to you, we are not going to force you to subscribe - we're doing you a favor, photographer, and keeping LR out of the subscription model.  See?  We know what you need."

Instead of simply saying, look loyal user, we've decided to change our business model and we apologize if this causes you grief, Adobe keeps insisting that their decisions are based on what is best for the user based on what Adobe knows the user wants and needs.  In the end, it may be best for Adobe to change its business model so that it can continue to exist and keep these tools available for the user.  That, however, is not the sentiment that Adobe is conveying - what is irritating is the insistence that somehow I cannot creatively express myself with Adobe tools unless I subscribe to them - that is, the subscription aspect of the CC is what is going to spur my creativity with modestly different Adobe applications (faster, more frequent updates, online Behance whatever-the-hell collaboration, Cloud syncing).  I get the sense very few people buy that argument, considering people have been getting along just fine without all of this for a long time.  So, you have the very real prospect of a disruption in the way people work trying to be balanced by the very vague and unknown potential of the Cloud and all of its claims and magic.  The former is immediate and easy to appreciate, the latter is unproven with no experience to change the fence-sitter's opinion.

Interesting.

kirk
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3643


« Reply #11 on: June 04, 2013, 11:33:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Bart, I have never been able to reconcile this assertion - it is called "PHOTOshop" and was designed by Knoll, a known photography enthusiast, and contains several darkroom analogs in its feature set.

Hi Kirk,

It's not my assertion, but I suspect that those who utter it are under the impression that Photoshop was traditionally mainly a tool for the CMYK oriented pre-press industry and retouch studios, not the providers of the images, photographers. As you say, its actual roots were more photographer oriented.

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
kirkt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #12 on: June 04, 2013, 12:02:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi Kirk,

It's not my assertion, but I suspect that those who utter it are under the impression that Photoshop was traditionally mainly a tool for the CMYK oriented pre-press industry and retouch studios, not the providers of the images, photographers. As you say, its actual roots were more photographer oriented.

Cheers,
Bart

And so it may have become such a pre-press oriented tool, if not immediately, over time.  However, Photoshop itself is a powerful tool that is capable of image processing that is useful, if not essential, to photographers.  To claim that is was not intended for photographers implies that the toolset is somehow not applicable to image processing if the images are photographs and the user is a "photographer" versus a pre-press or graphic artist.

Now, if the percentage of users of Photoshop that are "photographers" is insignificant, that is a different story.  That's what would be interesting to understand.  If the way I use Photoshop is so insignificant compared to the way it is used by "pros" in "industry" then I totally get the spirit of the move Adobe is making.  Again, if Adobe just said - "look, we know you use this tool this way, but your usage is such a small fraction of the total users who can benefit from the new subscription model and the CC features, above and beyond the applications themselves that we simply have to acknowledge the needs of the majority of users.  Sorry for the inconvenience."  However, telling me that I'm not a pro and that Lightroom is better for me is just not accurate.  So we will see what the more "tailored offering that focuses on [my] particular needs" will be.

kirk
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5474


WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 04, 2013, 12:08:04 PM »
ReplyReply

It's not my assertion, but I suspect that those who utter it are under the impression that Photoshop was traditionally mainly a tool for the CMYK oriented pre-press industry and retouch studios, not the providers of the images, photographers. As you say, its actual roots were more photographer oriented.

Make no mistake, in 1987-1989 when Adobe licensed the right to develop and release Photoshop, it was a commercial product in search of a home. The first release was with BarneyScan XP (Photoshop .87) which was a scanner designed to be used in graphic arts. Adobe licensed Photoshop to be in effect, a pixel editor to compliment their main vector application, Illustrator which was designed to use their up till them major source of revenue, PostScript.

At no time was Photoshop ever really developed as a tool for Photographers even though it used photo related terminology like dodge & burn. Between Photoshop 5 and Photoshop 7, a whole bunch of photo related features and functions were added in large part because Mark Hamburg worked with a small group of alpha testers who all happened to be photographers. Mark left Photoshop when the Creative Suite was started...Mark then developed Lightroom which WAS designed for and targeted to photographers.

So, while PHOTO is in the name Photoshop, there really ins't any legacy of Photoshop being developed for photographers (except for that narrow time window between PS 5-7).

Truth be told, Photoshop actually started as a file format converter to move proprietary CGI files from one system to another for John Knoll at Industrial Light and Magic (ILM). To move from one system to another certain image adjustments like levels had to be performed...so, in actual fact, Photoshop was originally started for use in the CGI side of the motion picture industry. In fact, when John and Thomas Knoll signed their deal with Adobe, George Lucas had to sign a waiver releasing any rights to Photoshop because John was an employee of ILM. Lucas figured that what would become Photoshop really had little or no value to the industry and gave it away...

So, no, Photoshop was not designed for nor target towards photographers...
Logged
BartvanderWolf
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3643


« Reply #14 on: June 04, 2013, 12:22:44 PM »
ReplyReply

So, no, Photoshop was not designed for nor target towards photographers...

But then, that was then ...

Photographers, who over the years in increasing numbers embraced Photoshop as their tool of choice are now told they should not complain, and use a non-layer enabled product for their work (or stop whining and fork over an increasing amount of their money to Adobe and feel honored that they are even allowed in).

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
ButchM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


« Reply #15 on: June 04, 2013, 12:33:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Make no mistake, in 1987-1989 when Adobe licensed the right to develop and release Photoshop, it was a commercial product in search of a home. The first release was with BarneyScan XP (Photoshop .87) which was a scanner designed to be used in graphic arts. Adobe licensed Photoshop to be in effect, a pixel editor to compliment their main vector application, Illustrator which was designed to use their up till them major source of revenue, PostScript.

At no time was Photoshop ever really developed as a tool for Photographers even though it used photo related terminology like dodge & burn. Between Photoshop 5 and Photoshop 7, a whole bunch of photo related features and functions were added in large part because Mark Hamburg worked with a small group of alpha testers who all happened to be photographers. Mark left Photoshop when the Creative Suite was started...Mark then developed Lightroom which WAS designed for and targeted to photographers.

So, while PHOTO is in the name Photoshop, there really ins't any legacy of Photoshop being developed for photographers (except for that narrow time window between PS 5-7).

Truth be told, Photoshop actually started as a file format converter to move proprietary CGI files from one system to another for John Knoll at Industrial Light and Magic (ILM). To move from one system to another certain image adjustments like levels had to be performed...so, in actual fact, Photoshop was originally started for use in the CGI side of the motion picture industry. In fact, when John and Thomas Knoll signed their deal with Adobe, George Lucas had to sign a waiver releasing any rights to Photoshop because John was an employee of ILM. Lucas figured that what would become Photoshop really had little or no value to the industry and gave it away...

So, no, Photoshop was not designed for nor target towards photographers...

(this is a copy of a comment I made in another thread)


"... regardless of the intended market for Photoshop ... millions of photographers have adopted Photoshop nonetheless ... also the fact that Adobe never offered any form of disclaimer or imposed any criteria for entry that Ps was intended specifically for graphic designers and artists ... nor did they refuse to accept payment from the lowly photographers that in no small way made it possible for Ps to become what it is today ... and by extension, helped propel Adobe into a multi-billion dollar global concern. Not to mention it would have shut down Scott Kelby stone cold decades ago as the NAPP membership is primarily photographers.

I find it incredulous for anyone, or Adobe, to be so dismissive by pointing out an intent that really is a meaningless facet that has very little to do with the actual reality of the situation.

I would venture to say, without the revenues that photographers have contributed to Ps and Adobe ... it might even be possible that Adobe would not now have the resources to even consider or support the CC model."
Logged
kirkt
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 176


« Reply #16 on: June 04, 2013, 12:40:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Truth be told, Photoshop actually started as a file format converter to move proprietary CGI files from one system to another for John Knoll at Industrial Light and Magic (ILM). To move from one system to another certain image adjustments like levels had to be performed...so, in actual fact, Photoshop was originally started for use in the CGI side of the motion picture industry. In fact, when John and Thomas Knoll signed their deal with Adobe, George Lucas had to sign a waiver releasing any rights to Photoshop because John was an employee of ILM. Lucas figured that what would become Photoshop really had little or no value to the industry and gave it away...

So, no, Photoshop was not designed for nor target towards photographers...

Makes total sense - Photoshop was designed as a digital image processing tool - that is how I have always seen it.  Back in the day, for a "photographer" to access such an image processing workflow, the film/slides they shot had to be converted to digital data - as you have pointed out, a process requiring specialized equipment and skilled operators, etc..  So I can understand that the intent was not toward the photographer shooting film, but to the image processing person who had to convert that to digital data (film/slide scan) and then manipulate the digitized image data (scan or CGI synthetic images, etc.) to prepare it for its intended use.  Nowadays, with the ease of digital acquisition, the "processing" part has become much more integrated into photography and the artist's repertoire, in general - the distinction between photographer and image processing specialist had changed.  In this sense, the intent of Photoshop as a tool to process images has simply found a new user base - the photographer.

kirk

Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9094



WWW
« Reply #17 on: June 04, 2013, 01:24:08 PM »
ReplyReply

It's not my assertion, but I suspect that those who utter it are under the impression that Photoshop was traditionally mainly a tool for the CMYK oriented pre-press industry and retouch studios, not the providers of the images, photographers. As you say, its actual roots were more photographer oriented.

Here's my take, coming from a person who purchased version 1.0.7 in May 1990: It was primarily for photographers and those photographers what wanted to dabble in image manipulation. And further, I don't believe Photoshop even supported CMYK until version 2.0 or maybe 2.5. The main competitor in those days, and the only competitor since then that had the chance to unseat Photoshop as THE app to use was ColorStudio and it supported CMYK before Photoshop. In those days, those of us that purchased Photoshop worried we bought the wrong package! ColorStudio was more powerful (more features) but more difficult to use, had a less polished UI than Photoshop.

All the other competitor's after that (Xres, Live Picture) came along much later and by that time, Photoshop was the de facto image manipulation product. Not that I didn’t play with both quite a bit, especially LP. The UI was it's kiss of death, while very powerful and very fast, and very, very expensive, by the time it arrived, most users were tuned to a Photoshop UI and workflow.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Isaac
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2811


« Reply #18 on: June 04, 2013, 01:33:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Truth be told, Photoshop actually started as a ...

Thanks, that was an interesting back story.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5474


WWW
« Reply #19 on: June 04, 2013, 01:38:14 PM »
ReplyReply

But then, that was then ...

Photographers, who over the years in increasing numbers embraced Photoshop as their tool of choice are now told they should not complain...

I've never said photographers should not to complain...just to understand what the circumstances are and be realistic with their expectations.

Photoshop actually has had three different lives over the two decades it's been available. It started as a tool for film and graphic arts, caught on and was used when then WWW exploded and them was adopted by many (but not all) digital photographers over the last 8-10 years. But all told, photographers make up a small percent of Adobe customers. So, Adobe is doing what it thinks is right for the magority (right or wrong). That's the reality...
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad